This is the end of the preview.
Sign up
to
access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: I CHAPTER SEVEN
\
94 Satzsfactory Nezghborboods GOOD NEIGHBORHOODS S ' ’ ood lace to live, Each myth
[radicmry qualiﬁés iitszeolOZEallﬁesnc:r§ed it 20 its logical conclusgnmn;
represéms alpamcbkd in glamour and self—importance, the Hamleg 13) m in
Page Is [he a“ Vinny Arcadia in tranquility and privacy, and Su u a ing
phelw and com enience. All of these things are important, butjinvesrythe
comfort 2mddicffm‘ent eople. By giving shape to our ultimate 6:11' “,men
(168:erpr usefo depcide on the compromises that we Will ma e
my 5 choosing a place in which to live. n this chapter I will discuss the qualities that residents themselves asso-
I ciate with good places to live. With this information and informa- tion from the earlier chapters I will derive a list of the qualities that are
most commonly associated with good neighborhoods. In a later chapter, I
will use these qualities to build a typology. Residential satisfaction studies—systematic surveys that ask residents what
qualities they associate with a good housing environment—are a surpris—
ingly recent form of enquiry; few studies date back before the 1960s. Most
of these studies use a random sample of residents, although some use spe-
cial population groups, such as residents of central areas, the suburbs, middle-
income neighborhoods, or public housing projects. The typical procedure is to prepare a list of potentially desirable qualities (such as “
place," “convenient public transportation,” and “lots of things to see and
do”). Sometimes the items on the list are elicit ed from the residents, but
more often they are provided by the researchers. Usually the residents are
asked to rate these qualities according to whe ther they like them or are
bothered by them in the place where they presently live, but sometimes a friendly Respondents are given a rating scale. The scale ma y be one of impor-
tance (“How important is it for a neighborhood to have each of the follow- ing qualities?”) or the questions may be phrased in terms of satisfaction
(“How satisﬁed are you with your present neighborhood”) or liking (“What
things do you especially like about living in this neighborhood?”). Some
studies ask residents to rate the area as a place to live, others ask them the 96
GOOD NEIGHBORHOODS reasons why they chose to move to this kind of neighborhood (usually
center-city or suburban) or about their intentions to move to another place.
In some studies it is their neighborhood that residents are asked to rate; in
other studies, residents are asked to rate their housing or residential area,
their existing environment, block, community, or town. In several studies
residents are asked to respond to photographs of neighborhood scenes.
Shlay and Digregorio (1985) ask residents to respond to vignettes made up
out of randomly assembled elements. We assume that all of these questions
tap the same vein of responses, but we cannot be sure.
There are other reasons why the ﬁndings of residential satisfaction stud—
ies should be interpreted with care. In the ﬁrst place, people tend not to
extend themselves beyond what they feel is reasonable; they are bounded
by their expectations and by the range of options that are (or are consid—
ered to be) currently available to them. In this way, for example, large yards
and lots of greenery are given more importance by people who live in the
suburbs (where they are likely to have them) than by people who live in
the center city (where they are not). Amenities that are taken for granted
tend to be overlooked, while those that are at risk take on exaggerated
importance. For example, residents in unsafe neighborhoods are more likely
to mention safety as being important. In familiar settings, residents who
have adapted to sources of dissatisfaction and stress tend to downplay their
negative value (Fried 1986; Campbell, Converse, and Rogers 1976; Brower
1988). A respondent in my own research provides an extreme example:
Although she expressed the need for elaborate safety precautions (she minded
her own business, and stayed close to home so that at the hint of trouble
she could whip inside and shut the door), she did not ﬁnd any problems
with her neighborhood. Others might have problems, but she did not, she
had learned how to cope. When asked to rate an unfamiliar setting, resi-
dents sometimes base their assessments on a stereotype. For example, resi-
dents who know in—town neighborhoods with poor schools think of poor
schools as an inherent feature of in-town neighborhoods. Another problem with residents’ evaluations is that different subsets of
residents tend to use different standards. For example, residents who are
younger, married, and female heads of families, and families with many
children, consistently record less satisfaction with any given housing set-
ting, and their satisfaction ratings are more strongly tied to perceptions of
crime, run—down properties, and the friendliness and similarity of neighbors
(Galster and Hesser 1981). Perhaps the main weakness of these studies is that they tend to regard residential satisfaction as the measure of a good environment, whereas it is
more likely the measure of a good ﬁt between the individual and the envi— 97
Sattq‘acto'y Neighborhoods Ion . . . .
ment, so that different indiViduals may ﬁnd satisfaction in different envi a $6235; the qualities that residents associate with satisfaction reveals
inconSistencies. Many of the ualiti f ‘ ‘
a higher rating on one means .q es orm bipolar pairs, where
greater satisfaction for so
n [f me res ondents b
mistoirnczihzrs. For example, some people think that a good ngighborhodld
perfectly :Ce atafiéil complement of community facilities others that it is
cep e to rely on facilities outs‘d ' I [hi ' . . i e the neighborhood; “111:1: lchat gt must include different types of people. others that all residzfilt:
that neegplbthe same class, income, race or ethnic background some think
ors must have strong social ties ‘th ’
only that they be civil and con ' M one mower, Others aSk siderate- some think th '
h . . . , at a ood n h -
ngrogagiiitiist catter pnrlparily to families with young childrei otheilsgfffdr
ona ouse olds- some think that it m , '
. ' . ,1 ust be tran url '
Ioutliers enjoy actiVity and liveliness; some think that it mucit 1321:3363
Odoée-or-leszﬁxclusively to housing, while others require the inclusion :f
uses. ese apparent contradictions s ri f ' '
good place to live images of diffe p n8 tom dlfferem Images Of a
. , . rent types of good neighborhoods
361$:dfollphmng ﬁndings of residential satisfaction studies are taken from
suldies :sd actigvelrcle done over about as many years. I started with the early
n a e ater ones as I came acros th
I was no longer ﬁndin . I s em, and whenI found that
g new information I ended th '
smb I e search.1 I Will d -
borhzége Eggs as {1:16}! apply to each of the three dimensions of neig:
I — ience, ngagement and Choicefulness B —
I . ased on th ’ -
:(gss‘arréd tlliose of prevrous chapters, I will then derive a list of qualfttsﬁtllijt
ng y associated with good neighborhood
. . s—alth
of these quahties are associated with any one place ough Clearly net all Let us ﬁrst see what we can I
earn about qualities of use and f
I have called the Ambience dimension of neighborhoods. Gun—What AMBIENCE rexirtisarslléeldizvhat qiéalities are necessary for a satisfactory neighborhood
n goo maintenance more fre uentl h ' ’
quality. They refer to the ' q' Y t an any Other smgle
general physrcal condition of the h ' 3:10? dspaces, which is associated with the apparent expegsslgﬁdagdem:
nevi; {3:152}an the alligence of disorder, deterioration and obsolescfnc:
e neig orhood as being well c ‘ . w u l . . ared for, clean, tid ,
e kept up, With no dilapidated structures. Lansing and Maransy(lr9:;) 98
GOOD NEIGHBORHOODS found that maintenance is the most important single determinant of how
well people like their neighborhood. Good maintenance is associated with
good appearance, and with safety—a well-looked-after neighborhood looks
safer.2 Tranquility emerges as another important quality in most studies; it is
associated with greenery, low density, lack of crowding, and social homo—
geneity. Peterson (1967) found that harmony with nature is a preferred
quality, and Hinshaw and Allott (1972) found a preference for suburban
and rural locations. On the other hand, some studies, particularly those in
center-city neighborhoods, indicate a preference for the built environment.
Berry (1985) found that one of the top attractions for new in—town residents
who move downtown is the excitement of center-city living. Intense activity
is associated with urbanity, high density, and diversity. It is also associated
with man—made rather than natural features—buildings that are interesting,
historic, and well designed. Gale (1979), for example, found that the archi-
tectural and/or historical character of the houses and neighborhood consis-
tently show the highest ratings; and Berry found that new in—town residents
rank the style and historic character of the neighborhood and the house as
one of the main reasons why they moved there. Studies of downtown resi—
dents suggest that they are Willing to trade residential tranquility for the
convenience of being able to walk to work and not having to depend on
the automobile. Hunter (1975) and Berry (1985) found that proximity to
work is among the first three reasons for moving into a downtown area; the
Baltimore City Department of Planning (1988) found that it is the most
popular feature of living downtown; and the Livability Committee (1991)
identiﬁed it as one of the favorite things about downtown. Baltimore. Tranquility and activity, although opposite qualities, are both associated
with good looks. Both tend to be associated with walking environments,
places where there is convenient, adequate public transportation. QUALITIES ASSOCIATED WITH AMBIENCE 1. A place that is clean and well maintained.
People want to live in a place that is clean and tidy, where buildings
and spaces are well maintained. Such places look more attractive and
safer. There is general agreement on this quality; nobody thinks that a
neighborhood is better if it is dirty or poorly maintained. This is the most
frequently mentioned quality in satisfaction studies. It is implicit in all
models, myths and ideals. 2. A place that is quiet and relaxing.
A good neighborhood is a place that is peaceful, that offers a break from 99
Sathfactory Neighborhoods the hurry and anxiety of the work place. It is a place where one can un- wind. This shows up frequentl ' ' ' '
. y in satisfaction studies. It ' ' -
ity of the Arcadian myth and of Refuge models. 15 a has“: qual 3. A place that is entirely residential. It is good to live in an area that is dedicated solely to the needs of horn
and farmly life; where there is no need for compromise in order to sat— e
isfy competing uses. This is cited in many satisfaction studies It is a b
SIC quality of the models and ideal schemes that guided the develome-nt of the suburbs. Its value is '
. questioned by those wh f' d
be lacking in interest and identity. 0 m the resuns to 4. A place that has a deﬁnite center. There should be a central place that serves as a geographic focus where
everyone goes, and with which residents identify as a community: This is a quality of the Paree and Hamlet myths It ' '
‘ . . is a has f '
orgaruzation, popular with designers. 1c om Of spatial 5. A place that is right in the center of activity. It is desirable to live in a place where you will be an on-the—spot partici-
patilnt iphtiiellatest events, activities, and fashions. This quality is character
is c O at etplace models and the Paree m It ‘ _
‘ . . is a v '
quality in the Arcadia myth and in Refuge mcﬂls. ery undesmme 6. A place where neighboring homes are close to one another. one needs a certain density in order to achieve an active and livel
Vironment and to support effective public transportation This is y er}—
ated With a desire for an active environment. It is a quality that isassom-
present in many models, and is much promoted by public planners
way of achieving efﬁciency and creating a good place for walking as a 7. A place that is full of surprises. It is good to live in a place that is constantly changing; one that is never
altogether predictable, never gets boring. This is a quality whose aes-
etic value is much favored by urban designers. It is an essential ele- ment of the Paree myth It is howeve ' '
. , , t 8. Livmg here, one can manage without a car. It is convenient to be able to walk to most places one wants to o d
1riot to‘be dependent on the automobile. Walking environments Ere 2:llso
t‘lilalt'hier and more. pleasant. This is a quality of in-town neighborhoods
t is frequently Cited in satisfaction studies. It is associated with Ma
ketplace models and myths of Paree and the Hamlet and is a feature l:>f some (but not all) Utopian schemes Walkin ‘
. . nei b
are Cited as models for new development. g gh orhOOds Of the pas‘ 100
GOOD NEIGHBORHOODS with convenient public transportation. ,
9. A pliiig in a place with public transportation increases the range oi:j 01:65: [-
activities without having to use a car. This is frequently mentjiolne d the
isfaction studies. It is an essential quality of Marketplace mo e sHaaqmet
Paree myth and is sometimes a feature of Club models and the myth. Returning to the satisfaction studies, let us now see what they tell us
about social relations in the neighborhood—what I have called the Engage- ment dimension. ENGAGEMENT People will not engage with one another. in a climate of fear, anjd safleg;
emerges as the most important single quality in a number ob sttu gist to
example, Cook (1988) found that neighborhood safety contri u es feel—
satisfaction in both center-city and suburban locations. Safety mleajns gaff“:
ing of security without fear from harm. Threats to safety inclu‘e am:
vandalism, and social abuse; also mentioned were robbery, ﬁg ting, gand
bling, theft, and assault. People associate safety With lower delnSitiels, 00d
with residential stability. Safe neighborhoods are also assoc1ate grs
looks (beauty and upkeep) and with the presence of friendly neifg o. .h— Friendliness is mentioned in a number of studies as important or .neig r
borhood satisfaction. Munson (1956) noted that six of the ten mosltairppoo-f
tant features of a good neighborhood are concerned With the attrfi es is
the neighbors, and Troy (1973) noted that half of overall satis ac c: h-
explained by satisfaction with the social env1ronment. keople wtrlilnt ntogbe
bors to speak and be friendly, but they do not necessarily want. himrhOOd close friends. Lansing and Marans (1969) found that the best neig 0(1964)
is one where people are friendly, but not intimate; and Lamanna.d . [er-
noted that while friendship is important, it is more importantuto av01 11111 re
ference and surveillance. He pointed out that the statements A town: eb
people attend to their own business" and “A town where yolukcan eve:
yourself and not have to worry about what other people thi 'trlecehom
higher scores than “A friendly town that has the of people w1 w that
you can stop and chat a while on the street or ViSit often. it seeriththﬁir
most residents enjoy close, if not necessarily intimate, friendships WiF . d—
neighbors. Some residents like having friends and family nezrby. (2:112:15
ship is also related to presence of places and‘ aCthltleS—SUC. as s idem;
shops, churches, clubs and community assoc1ations—that bring res together and foster a sense of community. Sampson (1988, 1991) found that 101
SatLy'aaoq Neighborhoods people are more likely to be satisﬁed with their neighborhood if they have
friends and acquaintances there; which, in turn, is more likely in neighbor-
hoods with a stable residential population. Sampson also found that resi-
dents are more satisﬁed in neighborhoods where, they feel, "people mostly
help one another.” Shared places and activities were mentioned in more studies than any
other single attribute. But while residents agree that neighborhood ameni—
ties are desirable, they do not agree about which amenities: Some want
amenities that serve household needs (a shopping center, grocery, drug
store, house of worship, place for outdoor recreation), others those that
cater to the needs of children (schools, and opportunities to use the out-
doors), and still others those that satisfy the individual’s need for self-fulﬁll-
ment and career advancement (workplace, cultural and entertainment fa-
cilities). Cook (1988) found that residents of the suburbs and the center—city
look for different kinds of amenities. There are also different views as to
where these amenities should be located: Some want them on a public
transportation line or on a highway; others want them within easy walking
distance of home. In-town residents are particularly insistent on shared
places near home. They are also more concerned about easy access to
cultural facilities. Not all residents look for friendly neighbors and convenient meeting places.
There are some who prefer to go their own way, not get involved with their
neighbors, not be tied down by local social obligations. The advantages of
friendship include companionship and support, but the disadvantages in-
clude loss of independence and less freedom of action. In one study (Krupat
and Guild 1980), “city people,” when compared to “small-town people,"
were characterized as often lonely and keeping to themselves, but also as
having a greater choice of friends and life—styles and being more interesting.
Friendship is often associated with social homogeneity, and independence
with social diversity. Based on these findings and the sources discussed in the previous chap-
ters, we can identify a number of qualities associated with good social relations among neighbors. Once again, not all of these qualities apply in
any one neighborhood. QUALIHES ASSOC“ TED WITH ENGAGEMENT 10. A place where residents feel safe and secure.
One wants to live in a place where residents feel that their person and
property are not threatened. This is a generally agreed-upon quality; no—
body prefers an unsafe neighborhood. This was the most frequently 102
GOOD NEIGHBORHOODS mentioned quality in a number of satisfaction studies. It is a feature of
early utopian schemes and is taken for granted in all models and myths. The following seven qualities (11—17) suggest engagement with many
diverse people. 11. A place with world-class restaurants, stores, and cultural facilities.
People enjoy living in a place where there is always somewhere to go.
where there is something interesting and desirable to see and do. This is
an essential quality of Marketplace models and the Paree myth. It is of-
ten cited as a reason for choosing to live downtown, and its absence is
cited as a reason for dissatisfaction with existing downtown areas. It is
considered quite undesirable in many suburban neighborhoods. 12. A place where there are many tourists.
The presence of tourists means that there are always new people, that
there are places to go that are unique and unusual, and that these places
are economically viable. This is an essential quality of Marketplace mod-
els and the Paree myth. It is cited by residents who find satisfaction in a
lively and diverse environment. It is not compatible with Refuge models or the Arcadia myth. 13. A place that suits the needs of newcomers.
No one wants to live in a place where one can easily get lost, and where
one is unwelcome. Designers stress the need for a clear organization of
the physical environment. This quality is also characteristic of the Paree myth and of many Club models. 14. A place to meet new people.
Many people, not only newcomers, want to live in a place where it is easy to make new friends and acquaintances and perhaps to meet a
mate. This is a basic quality of the Paree myth. It is a quality that is par—
ticularly attractive to young people and newcomers. 15. One can have an active social life close to home.
Having friends and acquaintances living nearby makes it easier to get to-
gether informally and on the spur of the moment. This is a quality that is
credited with attracting people to in-town neighborhoods. It is a feature
of the Hamlet myth and is often cited in advertisements for Club models. 16. A wide selection of goods and services close to home.
It is convenient to be able to find what one needs without traveling out— side the neighborhood. This appears as an important quality in many
satisfaction studies. It is a feature of Marketplace models, the Paree and Hamlet myths, and many Utopian schemes. It is not part of the myth of
Suburbia. l 03
Satisfactory Neighborhoods 17. Living here you do not have
to 5 nd ' '
house. pe as much time caring for the
Simple like being relieved of the chores of housekeeping. In the past
ere have been many schemes for relieving the drudgery of housewOrk
Clhl is quality is reflected in many Utopian schemes and underlies many I
ub models. It is Cited by people who move into apartments and con- dominiums. It is particularl attractive '
t . . . .
bom parents work. y 0 Singles and to families in which The next seven qualities (18—24) suggest a more intimate form of engage—
ment, largely With people who are compatible, known, and familiar. 18. A place where neighbors are outgoing and friendly.
It is reassuring to live in a place where residents feel accepted and
where they develop a strong sense of belonging. This is cited with re t
frequency in satisfaction studies. It is an important feature of the Hagml:t
myth. Oddly enough, it is cited both by people who prefer country life to ci life and b ' '
onesty y those who prefer in—town neighborhoods to suburban 19. A place to put down roots and settle.
It is good to live in a place that is stabl
. . l e, and one can make 2 Ion -term
commitment to livmg there. This shows up in satisfaction studies. i is re- lated to Confldence m the future 211d W [less to HWESt. t Is eatu e
1111!)
g I a f r 20. A place where most people know one another. Many people enjoy living in a place where they are known and where they do not have to deal with stran ers ' ‘
. This is f t
myth and of Club models. g a ea me Of the Hamlet 21. A place where one will always meet people one knows. One feels more at home in a neighborhood that has its own facilities
acr‘id where these facilities develop a local ﬂavor. This is related to the
1 ea that local institutions bring residents together to promote friendship and a sense or community It is a feature
' of th
many Club models, e Hamlet myth and of 22. A place where people take care of one another. It is good to live in a place where neighbors are kind and thoughtful and can be depended upon for hel '
pmcase ofne d.'1"hjs '
most utopias and of the Hamlet myth e is a feature of 23. A place where relationships are long—lasting and personal.
Many people like to live among people whom they know well and 104
GOOD NEIGHBORHOODS whose friendship will withstand the test of time. This shows a prefeli:is a
ence for settled, stable neighborhoods where there is little change. feature of the Hamlet myth. 24 A place where residents are involved in canimhunity difalgiake an in-
. ’ ' ' borhoo W ere i'esi en
One feels more in control in a neigh m r to selve
' d are prepared to work toge e
terest in the common good an It is stressed in
' rtance of a strong communi y .
common roblems. The impo . . I .
most utopian schemes and cited in many satisfaction studies. It is a ham feature of many Club models. . . . _ . h
The next two qualities represent a somewhat different Viewpomt a Wis
not to engage with one’s neighbors. 25 A place where there is no pressure to socialize or fjom anﬂzgéte
. ' ' ' lace where they are ree to p
Some ople prefer livmg in a p ' . .
or not}: they Want and where certain people do not to impose 2::
values on others. This is cited in some satisfaction studies. It is a ea of the Paree myth and Refuge models. It is one of the reasons given for
preferring life in a big city to that in a small town. 26 A place where residents are private and go Tltheir 0?: a place
‘ ' e
0 1e choose to remain anonymous. ey pr .-
ifhndfeptfiepneighbors mind their own business, where they can have pri
vacy without isolation. This is cited in some satisfaction studies. It is a feature of Refuge models and the Arcadian myth, and sometimes a fea-
ture of the Paree myth. It is considered undesirable in the Hamlet myth. CH 01 CEF ULNESS Let us see what satisfaction studies tell us about the quality of CJIOLCSIEZZS:
' ' (1 should have a goo r ,
Re51dents agree that a neighborhoo . I hb h 0d
' ' ‘ dents refer to a nice neig or o ,
about this there is no dispute. Respon h e the
' feel proud of, a place w er
the right part of town, a place you can t ” live 5
—“ ‘ kind of people —want to .
1 cu want to emulate the right ' .
l256:)c:>1:lere}putation also means an area where investors have confidence that
property values will hold steady and preferably Will appreciate. . hbor-
A prime consideration is the diversity of people who live in neigM n
hood and on this issue respondents have strongly differing tiplmom. C1; sy
, ' ' kind—peop e 0 en own ,
fer to live among people of their own
1:; income, values, and background. Campbell, .Converse, and Rogsegz
(197b) and Galster and Hesser (1981) found that an important character:1 C6
of a gOod neighborhood is having it composed entirely of one s own r , 1 05
Satisfactory Neighborhoods and Dobriner (1963) commented that the quality “better for children,” which
appears in a number of studies, implies ethnic and religious homogeneity.
Lamanna commented that references to “the right kind of people" implies
relatively homogeneous individuals and groups who do not pose a threat to
one another's social status. Sampson (1991) found that heterogeneity re—
duces neighborhood satisfaction. Galster and Hesser concluded that higher
satisfaction is related to racial homogeneity. Homogeneity is also associated
with higher property values. Shlay (1985), however, found that people are
ready to overcome their aversion to diversity if a diverse neighborhood has
the types of units and the amenities they want. Residents of in-town neighborhoods, on the other hand, tend to prefer
diversity. They say that they enjoy living with people who are different
from themselves in life—style, activities, ethnic and religious background,
and culture. Berry (1985) found that in-town residents are attracted by the
promise of an integrated neighborhood. Hunter (1975) found that they con-
sciously reject suburbia and express a positive assertion of the values of
“urban living.” The Baltimore City Department of Planning (1988) found
that the diversity of people and life-styles is an attractive feature for people
who live downtown. A separate study (Brower 1988), found that the variety
of people, places, and buildings is one of the most important qualities of a
downtown neighborhood as a place in which to live. Finally, the Livability
Committee (1991) found that one of the favorite things of residents of down—
town Baltimore was the diversity of life-styles, cultures, and people in a
relatively small area. Based on these and previously discussed ﬁndings, we can identify a number
of neighborhood qualities that score high on the Choicefulness dimension.
Once again, not all of these qualities apply in any one neighborhood. QUALITIES‘ ASSOCIATED WITH CHOICEFULNESS 27. A place that has a reputation as a desirable place to live.
There is general agreement on this quality. No one prefers a place that
has a bad reputation. It is good to live in a place where the people you respect live, and where property values appreciate. This quality is fre—
quently mentioned in satisfaction studies. 28. A place where all residents have a similar life-style. It is common to want to live among people who have the same values
and customs as oneself, they are more predictable and more considerate
of one's interests, and they are better role models for one’s children.
This is a feature of most utopian schemes and Club models. It is fre-
quently cited in satisfaction studies. In-town residents, however, say that 106
GOOD NEIGHBORHOODS it makes for conformity and that it is this that made them move from the suburbs. ‘ roblems of society.
. A lace that is rotected from the larger p
29 Igome like to lilie in an area where they are not exposed to people who may threaten their values and way of life. This is cited in many satisfac—
tion studies. It is important in Club models, where it supports thfhprow-
sion of private services. It also supports geographic separation, arac- teristic of many Club and Refuge models. 0. A lace to raise children. .
3 garents prefer a place where their children need not be confined and where they will have friends, the schools are good, 'and the neighbor:-
are suitable role models. This shows up frequently in satisfaction stuI res,
especially in the responses of residents who live in suburban areas. t is a feature of many utopian schemes. The following quality presents an alternative viewpoint. 1. A wide diversity of people live here. i . _
3 It is interesting to live among people with different customs and View points. In such an environment there is less pressure to conforr: to aCl
norm, and you are free to be whoever you want to be. ThIis is 22:21:11.6
by people who choose to live in in—town neighborhoods. ; [1:12. Ym of
Of Marketplace models and the Paree myth. It is not part 0 e m Suburbia. Finally there are different views about the level of sophistication that is
desirable in a neighbor. ' ' ' hbors.
2. A lace one can ﬁnd sophisticated neig . l
3 IS)ome residents like to live among people who are educated, interesting, and not bound by tradition. This is one of the qualities that attracts
young ambitious people to cities, and it is a feature of the Paree myth. h re nei hbors are genuine and down—to-earth.
33. A 1533:: li‘keeto live thith people who are open and honest, who are easy
to befriend, and are not fooled by pretensions and superfrcral impres-do
sions. This reﬂects a desire to return to the simple life, where tpeop f6: 3-
not try to dissemble and things are the way they seem. It is a asrc e ture of the Hamlet and Arcadian myths. 107
SatLgfactory Neighborhoods SUII'IMARY These 33 qualities are important attributes of good neighborhoods. As we
see, they represent quite different, often conﬂicting views about a good
place to live. Studies suggest that these views are tied to a resident’s social
class, early residential experiences, range of options, race, gender, stage in
the life cycle, and marital and employment status. For example, Coleman et
al. (1978) found that upper-class residents prefer a neighborhood that is in
the right part of town, has people with similar incomes, tastes, and interests,
is removed from the center city, is private, has good schools, and looks
good. Middle-class residents, he found, have a different set of priorities:
They prefer a neighborhood that is outside the city, is quiet and peaceful,
has good schools, houses friendly people with similar values and interests,
includes convenient shopping and churches, and provides good transporta-
tion. Working-class residents have still other priorities: They prefer a neigh-
borhood that is clean and safe, where residents are of the same racial group,
there are no welfare families and no absentee landlords, and the houses are
well kept up. Coleman notes that only among upper-status residents is
there any sizeable interest in living “almost downtown.” St. John and Clark
(1984) found that lower-class residents attach more importance to activities
that take place within the neighborhood, and Fried (1986) found that the
higher the social Class, the less the dependence on the neighborhood for
leisure and recreation. Fried found that lower-class residents place a higher
value on closeness to work, public transportation, church, friends and rela-
tives, and parks and playgrounds, and also on ethnic homogeneity and
mutual help among neighbors. Middle— and upper-class residents, on the
other hand, put more emphasis on the use of the car, easy access to the
outdoors and the country, and a sense of urbanity. Residents’ criteria for a good neighborhood are also inﬂuenced by the
size and nature of the community in which they live or in which they grew
up (Campbell et al. 1976; Hurmnon 1990; Cook 1988; Krupat and Guild
1980; and Blake, Weigl, and Perloff 1975). Hurnmon found that people who
prefer small towns enjoy peace, quiet, nature, slow pace of life, care, and
traditional values. People who prefer cities, on the other hand, enjoy a
diversity of people and activities, liberality, and enhancement of personal
freedom; or else they enjoy cities for their community, human contact, and
organizations. People who prefer the suburbs see them as quieter, smaller,
more natural and safer than the city, and yet with more amenities and
cultural life than a small town. Hurnrnon also found that people are rather
vague in their characterization of the suburbs—in fact, suburbanites often
think of themselves as living in a small town. 108
GOOD NEIGHBORHOODS Michelson (1980) found that people's feeling of satisfaction is influenced
by their ability to make future housing choices. He found that most apaits
ment dwellers view their housing as transitional, and that they arehqu1d
satisﬁed to live there as long as they feel that they are able to molveds cuis-
they want to. Apartment-dwellers who feel locked in are extreme y) iziaOds
fied. Berry (1985) found that many residents see downtown neigh or t and
as places where young, middle-class adults, while renting, can mee
marry before settling down to raise families in the suburbs. , t of a There is also a suggestion that gender inﬂuences people 5 concciep en
good neighborhood. Shlay and Digregorio (1985) found that men an) womtes
have similar responses to some characteristics (no more than 3 minu ‘
travel time to work, close social network Within the immediate eberII‘tint
merit, and at least half of the area population of their own race), . ut m:
they have different responses to Others. Men. attach importancel to énctolimé
racial composition, proximity to work—that'is, status and trave’— u nses
importance to amenities that affect daily life in the area. women s rispo or—
differ according to their work and marital status. Housewives attacl impt s
tance to neighborhood status, but they also value facilities and playma e—
for their children, and a low—density environment with good pub ic trans—
portation. Single women attach importance to diverSity in family comzo'sril—
tion (but not racial composition), convenient 'public transportation, an 1k
stitutional facilities. Employed women attach importance to access to wor Shlay and Digregorio conclude that different people look for dif erent 311;;
of neighborhoods: Men prefer a middle—class suburb, houseWives a Cl n-
suburb, single women a city neighlgorlgood, and employed women a ce - ‘ ' h orhood or inlying su ur .
[errlerlgprobiem is to define different types of neighborhoods alrid, f(())rf
each, the qualities that make it good. This means arranging the qua IlleSre-
good neighborhoods into discrete categories, so that each categoryrep of
sents a distinct type of setting and contains the features of good [Skittlgigsun-
that type. In the next chapter I will consider the prime variables at s
guish one type from another. NOTES
1. My review included the following: ' ' ‘ ‘ Indianapolis, Indiana.
Munson (1956) interViewed 288 residents in .
Wilson (1962) surveyed 385 people from Durham and G;eensbo;o, Nort‘llibiagztnzeas see
' ' ho moved rom ur an 05 .
b 'ner (1963) cited four studies of people w I ' i ‘ _
bright; for references to: Dewey (1948), who surveyed twelve thousand families in Millard
kee County Wsconsin; Anderson (1953) who surveyed residents of the fringe area ar 109
Sath'actory Neighborhoods Ithaca, New York; Martin (1953) who surveyed the rural-urban fringe around Eugene-Spring-
ﬁeld, Oregon; and Bell (1963), who surveyed two Chicago suburbs. Lamanna (1964) surveyed 211 adult residents of Greensboro, North Carolina. Peterson (1967) interviewed 140 test subjects using 23 color photographs of residential
neighborhoods. Lansing and Marans (1969) surveyed 596 adult residents living in private dwellings in the
Detroit region. Hinshaw and Allott (1972) interviewed 204 undergraduate students at Hunter College of the
City University of New York. Troy (1973) interviewed residents (number not reported) in the suburbs of Melbourne,
Australia. Blake, Weigl, and Perloff (1975) conducted a mail survey of 4,600 adults in Indiana. Hunter (1975) observed and interviewed residents of 154 blocks and households in an
inner—city neighborhood in Rochester, New York. Carp, Zawadski, and Shokrkon (1976) tapped data from several sources, including four
studies of poor, elderly residents in San Antonio, Texas, and a study of 183 residents of a low-
income area in Berkeley, California. Campbell, Converse, and Rogers (1976) drew from a national study of people’s sense of
well-being in which 2,164 persons were interviewed.
Coleman (1978) interviewed 900 people in three metropolitan areas in the United States and also drew on ﬁndings from earlier surveys that involved 1,000 people in three metropolitan
areas. Gale (1979) surveyed new residents in central areas in six major cities. Krupat and Guild (1980) surveyed 154 Boston College students. Michelson (1980) surveyed 751 families in the vicinity of metropolitan Toronto, who were in
the process of choosing housing. Respondents were interviewed irrimediately before moving
into the new housing and again two months after moving, a year after that, and three years
later. Miller, Tsemberis, Malia, and Grega (1980) surveyed 556 residents in four middle— and up-
per-middle—income neighborhoods of New York City. Galster and Hesser (1981) surveyed 767 households in Wooster, Ohio.
Fried (1982, 1986) surveyed 2,622 respondents from 42 municipalities in ten metropolitan
areas across the country. Weidemann and Anderson (1982) surveyed 245 adults in a multifamily public housing site in
Decatur, Illinois.
Nasar (1983) interviewed 96 people from six neighborhood groups in the area of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, using slides of 60 residential street scenes. Respondents were asked to judge
each scene using bipolar adjective scales. St. John and Clark (1984) used data obtained from a survey of 450 adults in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma. Berry (1985) reviewed a number of US. studies of revitalization in neighborhoods close to
downtown. Shlay and Digregorio (1985) and Shlay (1985) interviewed 177 residents in and around
Syracuse, New York, using a factorial survey technique in which housing characteristics were
randomly assigned to short vignettes. Varady (1986) used longitudinal survey data collected by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development in connection with the Urban Homesteading Demonstration pro-
gram. The survey included 1,754 families in 40 neighborhoods in 23 cities. Hummon (1986, 1990) interviewed 77 adults in four communities—one urban, two subur-
ban, and one small-town—in Northern California. Baltimore City Department of Planning (1988) surveyed 1,759 people who work in the ...
View
Full Document